on the part of the latter, in giving up all his property. I observe in the 12th section, the inode in which the learned gentleman has provided for the case of persons who shall deliver

up to plaintiffs, in actions against them, a schedule, signed by them, of all their effects, real and personal, in possession, reversion, remainder, or expectancy, 66 or which such defendants shall have power to dispose of or charge," or for their own benefit and so forth. I contend, that if they do, they should be allowed to take the benefit of the Insolvent Act.

PARLIAMENTARY RETURNS.

ATTORNEYS AND SOLICITORS.

Return to an order of the honourable the House of Commons, dated 7th June 1837;-for,

Returns of Customary and other Fees taken in each of the Superior Courts of Law on the Admission of Attorneys of such Courts respectively; and of Expenses incurred in the Examination of Clerks previous to Admission, and the Number of Clerks so examined in each Term;-also, of customary and other Fees taken in the High Court of Chancery on the Admission of Solicitors of that Court; and of Expenses incurred in the Examination of Clerks previous to Admission, and the Number of Clerks so examined in each Term.

COURT OF CHANCERY.

Return of Customary and other Fees taken in the High Court of Chancery on the Admission of Solicitors of that Court, and of Expenses incurred in the Examination of Clerks previous to admission, and the Number of Clerks so examined in each Term.

There is taken at the office of the secretary to the Master of the Rolls, for receiving and examining the credentials of each town applicant for admission, and for examining the admission prepared by the clerks of the Petty Bag previously to the same being signed by the Master of the Rolls, and for procuring his Lordship's signature thereto, a customary fee

of 17.

There is taken for the porter at the Rolls Court on the admission of each town and country solicitor, a fee of is.

There is taken for the usher of the hall at the Rolls Court, on the admission of each town and country solicitor, a fee of 1s.

No expense has been incurred in the Rolls Court on the examination of clerks previous to admission.

Two clerks only have been examined in Chancery since the regulations for such examination have been in force; namely, one in Michaelmas Term 1826, and one in Easter

Fees received by the clerk of the public office.

For receiving the credentials of each attorney whose residence hath not been in London the whole of the last two years previous to admission in Chancery; making the entry thereof in the books kept at the public office; making out such list alphabetically for the Rolls Court, and attending the court with the solicitors the morning they are sworn; preparing the roll kept at the public office, and preparing the admission of each solicitor, to be signed by two Masters in Chancery; for obtaining the Master's signature thereto, afterwards attending the Enrolment Office in Chancery to get cach admission enrolled, and afterwards to obtain the same, a fee of 17. 12s. 6d., is received by the clerk of the public office. William Thodey Smith,

Clerk of the Public Office.

PETTY BAG OFFICE.

12th June 1837.

The following are the Customary and other Fees received in the Petty Bag Office on the admission of solicitors in the Court of Chancery, viz:

On the admission of a towu solicitor, for administering the oaths and making out and enrolling the admission, 14s. 6d.

If not previously admitted in any other court, or if admitted at any other time than the ordinary days appointed for the purpose, viz. the morning after each term, 10s. 6d., more.

For the enrolment of a country solicitor's admission (paid by the clerk to the Masters in Chancery out of the fees received by him on the admission of country solicitors), 2s. 6d.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH. Return of Fees paid by Attorneys on their Admission in the Court of King's Bench. When a clerk has entered into articles, he is obliged, by 34 G. 3, c. 14, to register his articles at the office of the Master of the Court of King's Bench, and pays on that occasion a customary fee of 2s. 6d., and at the same time files and leaves there an affidavit of the execution of the articles, for which filing he pays the further fee of 2s. 6d., as directed by the 22 G. 2, c. 46, s. 6.

When he has completed his five years' service, he takes the affidavit off the file at the Master's office, in order to produce it as a document upon admission, and then pays there a customary fee of 5s.

By a late regulation, his documents are then produced to and inspected by a board of Examiners at the Incorporated Law Society, where no fee is paid.

He afterwards applies to a Judge of the Court for a fiat for admission, and pays the Judge's clerk a fee of 10s. 6d., if he has been previously admitted in another Court, and 1. 18., if he has not.

He then goes to Westminster Hall, and is sworn in and admitted; upon which occasion he pays for the oath 1s., and generally makes a compliment besides to the usher of the Court of about 2s. 6d.

Thomas Le Blanc, Master of the Court of King's Bench.

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.

Return of the Committee of Management of the Incorporated Law Society of the Amount of Expenses attending the examination of Persons applying to be admitted as Attornies.

That hitherto no charges have been made by the Examiners for the expenses of clerks previous to admission.

239

The expenses actually incurred by the Incorporated Law Society during one year have been.

Printing examination papers, circulars, and other papers Stationery, books for entries, &c.

Extra clerk, engaged at per

annum.

The Secretary of the Examiners has hitherto had no salary, but his labours are estimated at 301. per term; together, per annum Fitting up tables, &c. for examination, messengers and attendants Postages and incidentals

The above is exclusive of any expense or charge for the use of the hall, or for fires or lights.

The number of clerks examined in the four terms of the first year of examination has been as follows, viz:

Courts of Law.

Chancery.

APPLICATION TO STRIKE AN ATTORNEY OFF THE ROLL.

Sir William Follett.-In this case the rule calls on Mr. Walsh to shew cause why he should not be struck off the roll of attorneys in this court. Application was made before by the same parties who now make this application to strike Mr. Walsh off the roll. Your lordships thought the affidavits were not sufficient, and discharged the rule, but without costs. Those same parties have now come with affidavits, amended according to your lordships' direction, and made a second application to strike him off the roll. Now, applying the same rule to this as to ordinary cases, your lordship would not allow a party who has come with imperfect materials in one case, when that has been disposed of, to make a second application with amended materials.

Lord Denman.-That was a point that turned in our minds at the time we granted the rule, but we thought we were bound to see that the party was properly on the roll.

truly had served, and was employed by a man whom he never saw, for any thing that appears in the affidavit-who never was in the same house with him, with whom there is not a pretence for saying there was any service or business-feeling the awkwardness of having sworn that he really and truly served that party, he makes this statement: after saying he believes it was publicly known that he intended to make application to be admitted as an attorney, (he says that we knew it, which we deny) saith that" when he was about to be admitted an attorney, he felt considerable hesitation and difficulty in making the affidavit that he had really and truly served and been employed by the said William Caster Gates as his clerk, during the time he was under articles to him as aforesaid, but after perusing the case ex parte Matthews, reported in 1 Barnewall and Adolphus, p. 136, and being advised that if he was really ill during that period, it amounted to a service," &c.

Now, my Lord, the case which enabled this gentleman to swear that he had really and truly served Gates under the circumstances is this: "Ex parte Matthews-Amos moved for the admission of James Matthews as an attorney of this court, upon affidavits shewing that he was articled on the 18th of April 1822, and that he served under the articles till the beginning of June 1825, when he was seized with severe illness which prevented him from giving any regular application to business during the rest of the term of the articles, but that he attended as his health permitted, which attendance amounted in the whole to a very considerable proportion of the remainder of the term. The court allowed of his admission on the ground that his service had been prevented by the act of God, and that the applicant had done all in his power to qualify himself." Finding that this court, on a special application, stating all the circumstances, the party not swearing that he had really served, but had served as far as he could, and had been prevented by ill health alone from completing the remainder of his service, -the court, on that affidavit, truly setting forth the clear facts of the case, having admitted the applicant, Mr. Walsh takes upon himself to consider that as an authority, and that your lordships would consider it a true and bona fide service, if a man is two years and two months in the town himself, and never sees the person with whom he was articled, nor does anything for him. The construction of the court always has been that the transfer of articles is a new contract, which this court watches very closely, as well as the original articles; and this never can be considered as a defect of service: it is a total absence of all service, as far as Mr. Gates is concerned, there being no service whatever for a single moment; and the court would hardly deem the act of parliament was intended to protect such a person.

With respect to the remainder of the service, it is still more objectionable; for, taking Mr. Walsh's own story, it is imposible not to come to this conclusion, that finding it very

241

unproductive to be serving nominally a gentleman in London, he thought he might turn it to a better account, and in violation of the statute of George the 2nd,-which I think appears upon his own shewing, and which the other affidavits clearly substantiate, he entered into an agreeement by which Mr. Lester's name was put up in Sudbury as an attorney, and in no otherwise has he served Mr. Lester but by breaking that act of parliament, Mr. Lester allowing him to carry on his business in Sudbury in his name, Mr. Lester never being there at all. Now where the supposed service was not only not a service, but was in itself a specific violation of the act of parliament, this court has a jurisdiction to remove from the roll. I recollect well, that Mr. Justice Bayley laid it down that where an attorney carried on business in a town through the medium of his clerk, putting his name over the door himself, but never going there, he could not recover the fees; and I believe there was an application made to strike a gentleman off the roll for that sort of practice, in which this court strongly intimated their opinion that if the fact was made out, it would be a ground for striking the attorney off the roll; and I say he cannot come within the notion of a defect of service, but it is a substantive violation of the act of parliament, and a ground on which this court would act independently of that which was originally presented.

Lord Denman. We think we cannot get out of the words of that act. Without being certain that they were not meant to apply to cases of this sort, it is imposible to contend they will not cover it. Here is not a mere want of articles or altogether a want of service; it is a negation of service for a considerable period of time: there are articles, and there is service which is on the whole defective. It is impossible to say those words do not apply your statement would go to another charge of a different sort.

Sir F. Pollock. That charge is before the court.

Mr. Justice Littledale.-It is striking off the roll on the ground of defective service.

Sir F. Pollock.-In answer to what has fallen from the court about this being an application for defective service, I beg to say there is nothing of the sort in the rule, though when I made this application originally, and when afterwards I made it a second time, I abstained from pressing on the consideration of the Court any matter beyond the mere defect of service. My friend puts upon me a clause in an act of parliament not to be found in the printed statutes; for they print only a reference to some other statute; and though my friend Mr. Jardine had taken pains to look into it, he discovers the clause did not appear in any other former act.

Lord Denman.-Almost every indemnity act does something more extensive than the first

Sir F. Pollock.-I have a right to call the attention of the court to all the circumstances of the case, that your lordships may be ap

prised of the ground of application, though it is merely for defect of service; still, if it is examined, it brings under the consideration of the Court the fact of a gentleman who is about to apply to be adinitted an attorney of the Court, who is colluding with one of the officers of the Court to set up an office in Sudbury; and the business there being transacted by the clerk. That raises another consideration. But I beg here to say, in discharging the duty now cast on me, and representing, certainly, not any person who has a rival interest at Sudbury, the affidavit of the person who instructs me, distinctly discloses who he is, and what he is; and he is instructed by the Incorporated Law Society, and they feel it to be their duty in a case of this sort, that at all events it should come under the notice of your lordships, that you may decide if this is to be deemed-I cannot say, good service, but whether this is to be deemed that sort of conduct which your lordships will allow in a gentleman who has thus got on the roll, not by swearing to a service that is deficient, but by swearing to facts that are not true, and by being embarked in a service which is a gross violation of the act of parliament. Hitherto I have only stated that which Mr. Walsh himself puts on the files of the Court, in answer to the application on a former occasion. But there is not a syllable in the affidavit that states that Mr. Lester was ever in the whole course of his life at Sudbury. It is impossible but that Mr. Walsh would have made a statement that Mr. Lester was at Sudbury, if he was there during the whole of the time. Mark what he goes on to say. He says "that during the time he so carried on business for the said James Lester at Sudbury, he the deponent was in the constant habit of corresponding with his said master when any difficulty arose in the course of the said business; and the deponent also occasionally applied to another attorney in Sudbury for assistance, when the deponent was at a loss how to act." Now I would ask the Court whether the irresistible conclusion from the case is not that Mr. Lester never was at Sudbury during the whole time of that supposed service? for if he had been there, the clerk would naturally have said that Mr. Lester came sometimes to look after his business. Instead of saying that Mr. Lester ever came, he says that he was in the constant habit of corresponding with him; and occasionally applied to an attorney at Sudbury, but he never applied to Mr. Lester himself in person, in Sudbury. Then he goes on:-"Saith that he went to town occasionally." And he gives the dates of his absence from Sudbury; in London from the 31st January, to the 20th February; from the 8th to the 22d November, 1833,-(a period of about four or five weeks put together); from the 3d of April to the 6th of May, 1834,-and from the 6th to the 21st of April;-from the 2d of may to the 28th of July, 1835,-which last mentioned date is 22 days beyond the period of the expiration of this deponent's articles. Now, from that statement of Mr.

Walsh,—if it was not corroborated in any way; if it was not by other evidence more strongly proved to have been of the illegal, fraudulent, and collusive character, ascribed to it;—I say that upon that aloue, I submit that this is a fit case for your lordships to direct the master to inquire and ascertain what was the character of that supposed business that was carried on at Sudbury; that the Court may take care that however the language of the act of parliament was intended to cover slips and blunders, and negligences, and cure defects, attorneys may not get on the roll by that which amounts to a positive offence, and by affidavits which scarcely could be made without committing the offence of wilful and corrupt perjury.

Now, my lords, I have no desire to press this matter beyond what your lordships feel to be a wholesome exercise of the power with which this Court is entrusted,-not to gratify spleen or malice, but for the benefit of the public,— that no persons may stand between this Court and the public, but those in whom confidence may fairly be placed; and I say at once I invite your lordships to tell me at the earliest moment your lordships may think fit, that there is nothing in all these objections by which the public interest, the character of the Court, and the reputation of its practice, are at all endangered. The moment your lordships intimate there is nothing in all this, I am ready to stop. I think I have shewn enough without going into affidavits, to call on the Court to refer it to the master to ascertain whether that service, that clerkship to Mr. Lester, at Sudbury, was not a fraud upon the Court;-not a defective service, but a fraud and collusion between Mr. Walsh and his supposed master ;—a fraud that is denounced by a particular act of parliament, and which this Court has always visited (whenever there has been an opportunity of discussing it) with its utmost displeasure.

Now, my lords, all this matter which I have read from the language of Mr. Walsh himself, is confirmed by other affidavits. Your lordships thought the affidavit savoured too much of hearsay and belief. It is distinctly stated, that the parties were in the habit of seeing Mr. Walsh from day to day, insomuch that they are perfectly satisfied he never could have served in the manner which it is represented he did serve.-I do not know, my lords, why I should dwell on this information, when I have affidavits of Mr. Walsh himself to the fact.

Now, my lords, my friend says he means to advert to a certain part of the transaction with respect to costs. I have only this observation to make on the subject of costs;-that it seems very strange my learned friend should ask for the costs of the forty affidavits I have adverted to, which, forty-eight hours ago, we had intimation would be used on the present occasion; and then my friend puts in this clause of the act, and prays that the rule may he discharged with costs, and I suppose would ask us to pay the expence of all those affi.